and how Kinsey’s pseudo-science may have laid the foundation for mind control research
The history of science is rife with fraud and hypocrisy, but the Kinsey Institute’s pretensions to science – and their acceptance by the rest of academia – is extremely difficult to understand when one realizes the scope and extent of unscientific (not to mention criminal) practices passed off as science.
(A few of those practices I’ll detail in a moment.)
Weirdly (if one believes that we are an intelligent people), uncritical acceptance and uniformly positive media promotion went on all across America for decades.
And, most unbelievable, lawmakers changed the laws in every state of the nation, based on this false science, universities and grade schools adapted their educational programs, and many other changes occurred in popular culture, primarily entertainment.
Morals I’ll leave aside for now. I’ll focus on science – and the criminal use of children in that “science.”
It’s clear that Alfred Kinsey, author of the “ground-breaking” book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male [and Female], practiced the bare appearance, but not the honest discipline, of science: He presented detailed record-keeping, charts, and conclusions based on the record-keeping. The appearance of correct form, however, does not qualify as science, as I’ll make clear shortly.
Every gathering of scientific data begins with a thesis. Kinsey’s thesis was that human sexuality begins at birth, and he developed a methodology for proving, not honestly testing, his thesis. For a single example, his infamous “Chart 34” included the length of time (in hours, minutes, seconds, or fractions of a second) it took a child or baby to reach “orgasm,” and the number of “orgasms” a child or baby had in a given period of time.
There are three scientific problems related to this:
First, Kinsey’s definition of “orgasm” in a child or baby is not only unjustified, but grotesque. He wrote that the signs include crying, screaming, convulsions, fainting, efforts to escape, and hitting the “partner.” Obviously, every one of these signs could also be the behaviors of a person attempting to escape pain, but this “scientist” does not acknowledge the fact, nor does he include in his protocol any acknowledgement that there might be other causes for those signs than “orgasm.” All the signs of natural human reaction to pain are simply not recognized.
Kinsey’s blatant confusion of pain and pleasure is just one of many clear indications of his sadomasochism, a dangerous psychological condition that sometimes results in murder, as we will see he also participated in, at the very least as a counselor.
Second, Kinsey assumed – and built it into his questionnaires – that adults would create those symptoms in the child more than once in a single event. Indeed, in Kinsey’s tables we find that children were documented as being subjected to various treatments for varying lengths of time, even up to 24 hours at a stretch.
Third, while Kinsey’s defenders have credited some of his data to parents and nursery school workers, the defenders have admitted that Kinsey worked with predatory pedophiles that he was able to attract (with money from our tax dollars).
Some of his pedophiles were friends and associates, some contacted him as word of his “research” spread, and for some of his data, Kinsey interviewed hundreds of men in prison for sex and other crimes.
Among Kinsey’s long-term connections was Kenneth Anger, a porn filmmaker whose films are now housed at the Kinsey Institute. Anger was an acolyte of Aleister Crowley, a murderous pedophile who inspired the modern Church of Satan. Anger’s boyfriend, Bobby Beausoliel, would become the first murderer for Charles Manson. Kinsey traveled to Europe to engage this relationship. (Crowley himself died before Kinsey’s book was published, but may have corresponded with Kinsey before he died.)
Another data-providing pedophile, in the southwest United States (a good distance, which Kinsey drove for the purpose of meeting the man personally), was Rex King. Kinsey gave King ongoing instruction over the years on how to collect particular data – along with encouragement not to get caught. King documented having abducted, raped and/or murdered over 300 children.
Kinsey’s famous conclusion from his data matched his original thesis, of course: Children are born sexual, they like sex, and we need to teach them about sex, and introduce them to sex, from a very young age, even babyhood. This was then buried inside a long book that presented titillating information on everything Kinsey could think of to ask a true broad spectrum of people, with enough variety that the media could quote it for laughs and not notice the questionable science and conclusions.
A further insult to the concept of the scientific process is that Kinsey incorporated the data of hundreds of pedophiles and other prisoners and then sold the data to the media, courts, and other academic institutions as a fair cross-section of America (for which we needed to drop our pretenses and change the laws to eliminate our hypocrisy).
The final and maybe biggest insult to the idea of the scientific process: The Kinsey Institute claims not to have done any long-term follow-up on the children.
This is simply unheard of for an institution engaged in the “scientific” study of human psychology. Therefore, many people suspect the Kinsey Institute knows very well that their child subjects have not done well in life, as they refuse to allow any public or other research institutions access to their data.
Science was clearly a ruse, used only as a cover for pedophilia predation and for teaching and encouraging predation as a positive, “healthy” alternative form of adult-child “love.”
And somehow the public discussion, involving our American courts, media, and other academic institutions, failed to include in any substantial way the lack of reporting on the child subjects afterward.
Learned since then is that when sex and pain are fused together in the brain, especially at a young age, sometimes the powerful sex drive for the rest of one’s life triggers a corresponding requirement for pain, creating another potential sadomasochist, who can meet their needs most easily with more children. The behavior is then repeated through the generations, increasing the numbers. (Those who don’t fuse their pain and sex brain patterns may often split their minds instead, creating a different dysfunctional problem.)
Basic, even obvious, critical thinking was clearly absent in American media, academia and law. The media sensationalized Kinsey’s book, called it “a bomb,” and made jokes, but no one of significance at the time asked the most critical (and scientific) question, How are the children of Table 34 today?
This is where I come in. (Everything else above is recalled from two very-well-documented documentaries, Kinsey’s Pedophiles, and The Kinsey Syndrome.)
How or Where are the children today? I offer two theories.
My first theory is that someone noticed that some of the traumatized children became dissociative (“multiple” or “split” personalities) and switched “alters” (alternate personalities) when faced with the trauma of adult-forced sex. The splitting or dissociation allowed them to be used very easily from that point on – and some were funneled conveniently into mind control projects. (The sadomasochistic children could also be useful as participants in mind control torture.)
The US government’s MKULTRA project began just three years after Kinsey’s research began.
Second, it’s quite possible that the dissociation as a result of young sexual trauma wasn’t discovered, but had been well understood beforehand and was the intention – to create growing numbers of (useful) dissociative and otherwise dysfunctional individuals.
After all, populations easily controlled have been the goal of many regimes throughout the world and throughout time.
(High irony that our sexual “liberation” would contain these seeds of insidiously-spreading mind control.)
Edward Bernays had recently invented the most deceptive and manipulative sort of public relations. The CIA had accomplished its goal of placing news controllers throughout the major media. And CIA mind control projects would be launched in just three years. Kinsey’s work fits in this scenario perfectly.
Yesterday I asked one researcher about the possible connection between Kinsey’s research and government mind control, and I will continue to ask others.
Meanwhile, do any readers have their own evidence of a connection here?
Thank you for contributing..